Face the Nation transcripts June 30, 2013: Hayden, Olson, Perkins, and Davis
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on June 30, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Ted Olson, Tony Perkins, Michael Hayden, Clarissa Ward, Texas state senator Wendy Davis, Benjamin Jealous, Jan Crawford, Fernando Espuelas, Dr. James Peterson, and Michael Gerson.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning, again. We are going to begin in Cairo this morning, which has been very tense over the last few days. People have been killed, people have been pouring into the streets, protests trying to get the Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi to resign. Clarissa, what's going on there today?
CLARISSA WARD (CBS Foreign Correspondent): Good morning, Bob. Well, the streets are very tense as these protests get under way. You can probably see behind me some people starting to gather outside the presidential palace. They are also gathering in Tahrir Square and they are expected to be joined by tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of others who are going to demand that President Morsi step down. They say that one year into his presidency, he has failed to deal with Egypt's very serious economic problems, its crime problems and they say that he has essentially put the Islamist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood ahead of the greater good of the Egyptian people. Now, meanwhile, just a couple of miles that way, pro-Morsi Islamist supporters have gathered. We went to see them earlier. They were carrying sticks and bats. They were wearing hard hats. They say that these are just defensive weapons that they don't want to see any violence today, but they said that they are willing to defend the presidency that Morsi was democratically elected and that he has a right to see through his term. So the concern today, really, is that both sides are going to converge on the presidential palace behind me, that there will be more clashes and more lives lost possibly.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, we may have to come back to you, Clarissa, later in the day, thank you so much. And there were new developments overnight in the National Security Agency story, the story of those leaks. The latest is now Der Spiegel, a German magazine is reporting that the United States spied on-- on the European Union. One person, a top official in the German government, is now charging that the United States is using the kind of Cold War tactics on its allies that were used by its enemies during the Cold War. Here to talk to us about this the former head of the National Security Agency, General Michael Hayden. General, what about this latest story? Have we been spying on the European Union?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN (Former NSA Director/Former CIA Director): Well, first of all, Bob, I've been out of government for about five years, so I really don't know and even if I did I wouldn't confirm or deny it. But I-- I think I can confirm a few things for you here this morning. Number one: The United States does conduct espionage. Number two: Our Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans' privacy, is not an international treaty. And, number three: Any European who wants to go out and rent their garments with regard to international espionage should look first and find out what their own governments are doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, a-- as I understand it, we were-- we were corralling something like a billion e-mails a-- a-- a month from Germany?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, I-- I have-- I have no idea, Bob. I really don't. And-- and let's keep in mind that in a global telecommunications infrastructure, geography doesn't mean what it used to be. Things of a place may not be in a place and things in a place may not be of a place. I mean the internet actually lacks geography, and-- and so I-- I wouldn't draw any immediate conclusions with regard to some of those numbers that have been put out there as to who's being targeted and who isn't.
BOB SCHIEFFER: In the meantime and between time Edward Snowden, this former employee of the National Security Agency, who got out of town, headed first to China, we now think he's in the airport--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --in Russia, had four computers full of stuff, but the President seems fairly sanguine about all of this. I noticed this morning he said, look, I'm not going to, you know, launch jets to chase down this hacker.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll follow the usual law enforcement channels. Should we be more aggressive about this?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: I-- I personally think we should be and I think the President's trying to limit diplomatic and, perhaps, even political damage. But the leadership of the American intelligence community has caused the damage from these leaks so far-- and it's very clear there's going to be some more here so far has been significant and irreversible. That's a big deal.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You-- you think there has been significant damage done by Edward Snowden?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Yes, I do.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Just because it's been exposed and we're getting this kind of publicity from Germany now or because of operational things that have been disclosed?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Three-- three-- three things. Number one: Operational things have been disclosed. I mean you're a newsman, you know about protecting sources and methods and here now our sources and methods have been made public, so that's one. Second: Look, we cooperate with a lot of governments around the world. They expect us to be discreet about that cooperation. I can't imagine a government anywhere on the planet who now believes we can keep a secret.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We appreciate you coming to talk to us this morning because it's not easy to get people from the government that are in the government. Now, do you think the government ought to be doing more to help the American people understand what's happening here?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Look, one of the results of the Snowden links is that it's launched a-- a national debate about the balance between privacy and security. I am convinced the more the American people know exactly what it is we are doing in this balance between privacy and security, the more they know the more comfortable they will feel. So-- so, frankly, I think we ought to be doing a bit more to explain what it is we're doing, why, and the very tight safeguards under which we're operating.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know this week it was disclosed that General Cartwright who was the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, known to be very close to the administration--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --it comes out that he now is being investigated by-- about some of these leaks. Is it conceivable to you that-- that General Cartwright could-- could be the leaker here?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, look, besides being close to the administration, Jim Cartwright is close to me. He was a good friend while I was in active duty. I mean we do not produce better officers than-- than-- than Jim Cartwright. And, so as this evolves, I-- I certainly pray that it doesn't lead to any kind of personal or national tragedy as we move forward on this. But, Bob, that reflects the question you just asked a few minutes ago, how are we in a free society to have a healthy dialogue between those in government who must do necessary and necessarily secret things and an American public who deserves at least some broad outline about what it is we're doing to protect them. I mean this is a true dilemma.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You sound to me like this morning, General, you are calling on the administration or at least basically pleading with the administration to give us more information about what's going on here.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, here-- here's how I do the math, Bob. In an ideal world I keep all of this secret because any of it that I make public slices some of my operational advantage away from me. But here's what I've learned heading up both NSA and CIA. You may be able to do one thing one-off based upon narrow legalness and the President's authorization, but democracies like ours don't get to do something over a long period of time without national consensus. So I'm willing to shave points off of my operational effectiveness in order to make the American people a bit more comfortable about what it is we're doing otherwise the American people won't let us do it in the first place.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Story in the Washington Post this morning that basically said that critics are saying that the-- the secret court, the FISA court, that authorizes all of this was-- the story is-- some critics suggest that FISA was just a rubberstamp for whatever the administration wanted to do. The story says that you actually met with the FISA court--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: I did.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --judge who took great exception to that version of history.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Was that unusual for you to be meeting with her?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: It was. Normally, we-- we go down to the court to get warrants in a very routine manner. What was happening in the summer of 2004 was not at all routine. It was quite a different kind of court order that we were seeking. I-- I can't go into the specific operational details but it was an unprecedented court order that we had to explain to Judge Kollar-Kotelly why we wanted it, what the tradeoffs would be, how we could manage it and then, frankly, take an awful lot of her guidance as to how we would have to do it if she were even to contemplate giving us a warrant to do it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: About out of time here but let me just ask you--in your view, was the FISA court rubberstamping whatever the government wanted to do?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: No. No, not at all. And I know people point to the number of warrants we request and the number of warrants we get saying it's rubberstamp. Actually, Bob, I would turn that on its head. That tells me we weren't pressing the court hard enough. We weren't giving them any tough decisions.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you very much, General.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we'll be back in one minute with a lot more.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We're going to turn now to those big Supreme Court decisions of last week and with us is Ted Olson. Mister Olson, it's great to have you with us today. Out in California over the weekend, dozens of same-sex couples got marriage licenses. A former solicitor general for the Bush administration, you argued the case that won out there. So let's-- let's talk about this a little bit because coupled with the overthrow of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, these decisions go beyond being just historic, don't they?
TED OLSON (Former Solicitor General): They really do. These decisions signal equality for so many of our citizens for so long have been discriminated against. Proposition 8 in California put in the constitution of California, a statement that these individuals and their relationships were not equal and were second class. And we've removed that stigma. And you can see joy-- tears of joy and happiness in hundreds of thousands of people getting married in California to the person that they love.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The President wants to make the federal government responsible now for benefits to gay married couples dependent on where they live not where they marry. And this is going to-- this is going to be very complicated in how this is carried out. How-- what do you make of that and what's the next step here in this?
TED OLSON: Well, I think the next step is to adjust the Defense of Marriage Act. There was a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that was left intact--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
TED OLSON: --because it wasn't challenged in-- in this case. But we recognize in one state a-- a legitimate marriage in another state for benefits, especially for federal benefits but also for other rights under state law. We should be treating all of our citizens equally irrespective of their sexual orientation. This is something that they did not choose to be. They are our brothers and sisters. We should treat them equally under the law.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But having said that this is going to be very difficult to get this done, is it not?
TED OLSON: Well, everybody said that four years ago when we brought the case challenging Proposition 8 in California. The polls have changed. The American people's attitude towards their brothers and sisters who are gay and lesbians have changed enormously, more than any other major social issue that-- in my lifetime I have ever seen. The American people are ready to welcome their brothers and sisters into the community of America.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, already opponents in California are saying the state courts moved too quickly and they're trying to file injunctions and things like that to stop these marriages from being performed. Can they be successful in that?
TED OLSON: Well, I don't believe they can be successful. They lost in the district court, they lost in the court of appeals, they've lost in the United States Supreme Court. They lost in the California Supreme Court. This-- United States Supreme Court said that they did not have standing under the law to challenge the overturning of Proposition 8. I don't believe they're going to get anywhere and I think we'd be better off in this country if we stopped doing this sort of thing that is divisive and it's hurting people who live next door, who work for us, who are-- who are cousins and brothers and sisters. We need in this country to remember the Declaration of independence, the Gettysburg Address. All men, all women are created equal.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about not the case you argued but the other one, the Defense of Marriage Act. The court put some pretty strong language in there. Were you surprised at how strong the language was?
TED OLSON: Well, I-- the-- we do believe that laws which discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation demean them, causing dignity-- cause humiliation to their children, put them in a different category; and that is very, very wrong. Sometimes the Supreme Court, especially late in the term, gets very, very strong in its language, various justices in conflicting opinions. At the end of the day--the end of the day--this is all about the joy that you're seeing in the eyes of those people in California who can finally get married to the person that they love and raise their family with equality in their communities.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you: You were-- you were the solicitor general from Ronald Reagan. You've always been known as a conservative. You've argued many conservative causes. Did you always feel this way on this particular issue or did you have some sort of epiphany? Or how did you happen to come down on the side you did?
TED OLSON: I have always felt that we are wrong to discriminate against our fellow citizens. That's what this country was founded on, the condition of equality to all of our people to tolerance and equality and-- and equal treatment under the law. I should say I was a partner in this venture with David Boies, very, very well known attorney who has a reputation in the more liberal community. But we've both been saying this is not about conservative or liberal, this is about Americans. This is not about Republican or Democrat. We came together because we wanted the American people to see this as American.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What did you-- what kind of reaction did you get from some-- some Republicans?
TED OLSON: Well, some Republicans have not yet come to understand that this is the right thing for all of our country to do. But, as I said, the polls have changed enormously. Seventy-nine percent of the people under thirty believe in marriage equality. Republicans are changing. Democrats are changing. I think the day is going to come-- maybe within just a few years when the Republican Party, just like the Democratic Party, and all Americans-- believe in equal treatment for all of our citizens. This is so important to this country.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you so much, Mister Olson, pleasure to have you here.
TED OLSON: Bob, thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're going to get some perspective from the other side of the street now. We go to Baton Rouge and the head of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins. You were not happy to see this ruling, were you, Mister Perkins?
TONY PERKINS (Family Research Council): Well, Bob, certainly, both these cases were disappointing, although, I have to say on the California case, the Prop 8 case, the-- Mister Olson and Boies they-- they actually wanted to use that case to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation. They failed in that. The court simply punted it back to California. We still have even without California thirty-seven states that define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. But I will say it's certainly disappointing and-- and many Americans are upset with the activism of this court. Essentially what the court has done is that they have-- they've dragged we the people from behind the wheel of this republic and they've carjacked the nation. And this never ends up good. I think what you're going to see is this leads, as we're already seeing over the weekend in California, lawlessness and this is not good for our republic.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you just heard Mister Olson here, he said, hey, things are changing. There's a new day here. People feel much differently today about all this than they did even a couple of years ago. He would say that you're just behind the times.
TONY PERKINS: Well, you know, just last year another state voted to put marriage as a union of a man and woman in their state constitution. The whole time this has been unfolding in the last ten years we've had over thirty states vote on this. Currently, thirty states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Another eight states define it in their statutes. So the real poll that counts here is not-- because, Bob, you know this you can get the results based upon the question you ask. The real poll is what people do when they go to the polls and vote on this and still almost every time they vote for the natural definition of marriage of a man and a woman.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So what do you do next? What-- what is your next move in this? Because, clearly, you think this fight is still to be fought. That it's not over.
TONY PERKINS: Well, I think you're right, Bob, because there was a silver lining in this. As I said, those that were challenging Prop 8 did not go simply to see the court punt. They wanted to see that case used to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation and they failed in that. That buys a little time, I think because I think Americans will begin to see that with same-sex marriage does not come a hope chest, rather it's a Pandora's Box. What we'll see is the-- the loss of religious freedom, the loss of parental rights. I mean we're going to see parents who pay taxes to send their kids to school, those schools are going to start teaching those children values that are in contrast with the parents. We're already seeing bakers and florists and photographers forced to participate in same-sex marriages under the threat of law and in some cases even jail. I can't think of anything that's more un-American than that. So I think as Americans see that there's a lot more to same-sex marriage than simply two people who love each other that they'll have time to reconsider this and-- and-- and decide whether or not we want to trade fundamental freedoms of speech and religion for the right of two people who love each other, which they can do now. They can live together, but can they redefine marriage in the rest of society with it?
BOB SCHIEFFER: How is it that bakers and florists are being forced to participate in this? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
TONY PERKINS: Well, we're seeing in Washington State, Colorado, and some of the other states that have these anti-- anti-discrimination statutes that are being imposed that when a same sex couple comes and says "I want you to take pictures of my wedding or I want you to bake a cake." And they say, look, my religious convictions will not allow me participate in that, they're literally being sued by the government, not the individuals, and they've even been adjudicated in such places as New Mexico. So we're going to see a loss of religious freedom. There is no question about it. It's already happening.
BOB SCHIEFFER: How many-- how many lawsuits have been filed on that? Because I must say this is under my radar. I haven't-- I haven't heard this.
TONY PERKINS: Well, you know, Bob, that's a great point. Because the media's not reporting on this because they realize there's a lot more behind this than the marriage altar. It's literally about altering the landscape of America. There are a number of suits. I mean just a few weeks ago in Colorado one was filed. So this is happening. And it's the reality that people will come to face to face with over time because right now same-sex marriage is limited to twelve jurisdictions. And as more people see that their freedoms, the freedoms of parents to determine what their children are taught, to be able to live your life according to your faith, and all of that's at risk here. I think people will say, wait a minute, that's not-- I gave a nod of affirmation but not to that. And-- and so I-- I do think there's going to be time to rethink this.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What-- what is your next move, though? Will you focus on trying to find some new kind of legislation to propose? What-- what exactly are you going to do from here on?
TONY PERKINS: Well, there's a few things. One, looking from a federal perspective as spoken with a number of member of-- members of Congress and I do think that, again, this activist streak from Justice Kennedy in writing the opinion for the majority on DOMA overstepped a lot of the research that was used to pass DOMA back in the mid-nineties. I mean Professor Arkes-- Hadley Arkes, even Hillary Clinton's own work was cited as reasons for wanting to protect the traditional and natural definition of marriage. That was not talked about. And even more studies have come out. The social science has made clear that the government has a rational basis for defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. So I think there's some steps federally to look at for federal purposes that the court did not directly approach and then, of course, going back to the states and working to promote both marriage and strengthening those strongholds of those states that have marriage protection amendments in their state constitutions.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right
TONY PERKINS: I think you are going to see more of a containment strategy going forward.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you so much, Mister Perkins. I'll be back with some personal thoughts about another issue, immigration reform. In a minute.
BOB SCHIEFFER: When the Senate passed the immigration reform bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, the New York Times accurately reported-- and I quote-- "Party leaders hope the Senate action will put pressure on the House." Earth to Party leaders: Don't hold your breath. Here's why. As party leaders you see the changing demographics the country is undergoing. You know the Hispanic population is growing. You watched as Mitt Romney did quite well among old white guys while President Obama ran away with the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, and the Asian vote. You have realized that unless your party can find ways to appeal to minorities, winning presidential elections is going to be a steep climb. But here's some news you can use: National Journal reports that seventy percent of the House districts represented by Republicans have Hispanic populations of ten percent or less. That means voting against immigration reform is one of the easiest votes that Republicans in those districts can take. Voting for it increases the possibility they'll get a Republican primary opponent next time. I have noticed over the years that when politicians of either party are given the choice between personal survival and party survival they usually choose personal, which is why I'm guessing that when it's over we'll put the headline on the immigration story that we put on other stories "It took a while, but in the end, nothing changed." Back in a moment.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of you, we'll be right back with Texas state senator, Wendy Davis, who filibustered an anti-abortion bill for eleven hours. And we'll have our panelists. Stay with us.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION. Our next guest, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis has a wonderful biography, the daughter of a single mother. She raised two daughters as a single mom herself. She worked her way through Tarrant County Community College, then TCU. And, full disclosure here, that's my school in my hometown, and she went on to graduate from Harvard Law, which I'm sure wasn't as tough as TCU. But few outside Texas knew of her until last week when she became an overnight sensation. When Wendy Davis spent eleven hours filibustering a bill to put new limits on abortion in the Texas Senate, the nation took notice. Hundreds of supporters created such a ruckus, the legislative session ended before the Senate could act on the bill. But that's far from the end of it. Texas Governor Rick Perry has called another special session of the legislature to bring up the bill again and he set the stage with a remarkably personal statement about the senator.
GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: She was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate. It's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example: that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Perry managed to go beyond that a short time later.
GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: She didn't come from particularly good circumstances. What if her mom had said, you know, I just can't do this.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Wendy Davis joins us now from Fort Worth, Texas. Senator, what went through your mind when you heard the governor? Because, basically, what he was saying was what would have happened if-- if your mother had had an abortion
STATE SENATOR WENDY DAVIS (D-Texas): Well, what went through my mind was that that was a terribly personal thing to say. And, of course, I've been in the political arena for some time. It takes a lot to offend me. But what I was offended about was the statement that it makes on behalf of women throughout the state of Texas. I think it showed disregard for the fact that we all, we each, own our own personal history. We make choices and-- and have the opportunity to take chances that present themselves to us. What this is about is making sure that women across the state of Texas have the same opportunity to make those choices and have the same chances that I had.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, after coming under these attacks, do you regret taking the front row that you did on this and leading this charge?
STATE SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: I think it was so important for us to stand up. And I want to make sure and say that my Senate Democratic caucus was all-- each of us were willing to do this. And-- and I was proud to be the person selected because I'm a woman and a mother of two daughters. But the important thing that happened here was we were giving voice to thousands and thousands of women across the state of Texas who felt that they'd been cut off from this dialogue. Who wanted to share their personal stories and had not been able to with a hearing being artificially closed off, even though, they had waited for many hours. And it gave a chance to give voice to the personal stories and testimonies that they wanted to be told.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think you can actually stop this from happening because, as you well know, the governor has called another special session of the legislature which starts tomorrow? You're going to have a difficult time blocking it this time.
STATE SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: You know they-- they mismanaged the clock terribly last time and they also ran roughshod over a lot of our Senate rules and traditions to try to ram this bill through. And-- and they'll probably be a little bit smarter about how they try to move this bill in this next session starting on Monday. But what they now have to confront is that the eyes of Texas, the eyes of the country are watching. And they are going to be held accountable for the decisions that they make in this process. And if people continue to see that their voices are being ignored, I think we are going to see a long-term sustained response to that in the state of Texas.
BOB SCHIEFFER: There is a poll out down there by the Texas Tribune that says sixty percent of Texans support banning abortions after twenty weeks, which is one of the things that this bill would do. It also closes down a lot of places where women can now get abortions. Do you feel that being the case isn't that going to make it even more difficult for you?
STATE SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: You know I think really what's happening here, Bob, is politicians are using this issue to boost their own political aspirations, their own political ambitions. And they're bullying women and their liberties, their personal constitutionally guaranteed liberties in the process. And it sets up, unfortunately, for women in Texas, a very dangerous place for their reproductive rights and health care. In Texas we have forty-two clinics right now, only thirty-- only five, excuse me, would remain open if this bill were to pass. And people who are completely objective and outside the political dialogue, like the American Obstetrics and Gynecology College, are saying to us if this happens in Texas, women in impoverished remote areas of Texas, and, believe me, that means thousands and thousands and thousands of women will no longer have access to this safe reproductive health care. And we all know what happens in the context of the lack of that access. We've seen it before in our country's history and I fear that for their political ambitions Governor Perry and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst are willing to cast that aside, put women in harm's way in order for them to step up on the political ladder.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator, we want to thank you very much for joining us this morning. And we will be back in one minute with our panel for some analysis.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're back now for our panel to do a little analysis on this week what I call news overload. Ben Jealous is the head of the NAACP; Fernando Espuelas is the host of a radio show on the Univision Radio Network. And I think you got a lot more viewers than we do. James Peterson is professor at Lehigh University in Philadelphia; and rounding out the group CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford and Washington Post columnist in Michael Gerson. Jan, well you just heard Senator Davis from Texas. This movement, though, is kind of spreading across the country, isn't it where you have other legislatures trying to get this same bill passed?
JAN CRAWFORD (CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent): Oh, sure, abso-- absolutely. I mean we've seen a wave of tough new laws restricting abortion over the last couple of years throughout the country. You see states trying to pass laws limiting some of these later-term abortions which is, of course, what Texas is trying to do. You see these mandatory ultrasound laws requiring women to see ultrasounds before they get abortions; greater, tougher restrictions for parental involvement, for insurance coverage. All of these restrictions now going, really, sweeping across the country and that's because the Supreme Court back in 2007 signaled that it was going to allow greater restrictions on abortion and the states have responded. Now, that said, I mean this Supreme Court has said we're going to allow these restrictions; we're going to allow more restrictions; but this Supreme Court right now is not going to allow an outright ban on abortion. There are not five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade on this Supreme Court And that, of course, is because of that man in the middle, the one we talk about every year, Bob, at the end of the term, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you expect abortion to come back to the court?
JAN CRAWFORD: It will, eventually. And that's when all eyes, of course, again, will be on Justice Kennedy because he has been the one who has refused to go as far on some of these things. We talk about Justice Kennedy. Look what he did this past week. His vote is pivotal on all of these issues, affirmative action, voting rights, gay rights. Sometimes he sides with conservatives; sometimes he sides with liberals. We try to figure out where is Justice Kennedy going to fall? I think the secret to thinking about Justice Kennedy is that Anthony Kennedy does not like to say never. He's not going to say never to affirmative action. And he's not going to say, at this point, never to abortion rights.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's talk about some of those other rulings that came down, not the least of which was the Voting Rights Act where they took out the key provision in there, which, basically--correct me if I'm wrong--said that the government can no longer has to approve changes in voting laws in the various states. Professor Peterson, what did you make of that? Some people say it's just long overdue-- I'm sorry, long overdue and-- and--
JAMES PETERSON (Lehigh University): Well, I feel like they gutted the Voting Rights Act and I think if anything from my perspective, this is something that needed to be expanded. I understand that the court's concern about whether or not we're applying the pre-clearance measure equitably to municipalities and regions that are actually egregious in terms of how they're instituting these different laws. But-- but the rationale that somehow the data is old or that in this most recent election we didn't have all these cases of voter ID laws and all these-- or voter ID laws and all these different strategies implemented last minute to try to suppress votes. That to me just-- just seems absurd. If anything, there's an argument to expand that-- that-- that provision which is Section 4 of it, not to retract it. And so I think what we need to do right now is think about how do we respond to it. And I think Ben can speak to that. But I think communities are going to have to, you know, give voters to get IDs and figure out other strategies to really try to directly address what I think is a seriously unfortunate moment for American democracy.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Ben, what do you think the response is going to be?
BEN JEALOUS (NAACP President): Look, we will respond at two levels. When there was a poll tax, we said pay the poll tax, so you can vote.
JAMES PETERSON: Right.
BEN JEALOUS: And when we see the Texas will-- we see that Texas wants to oppose a strict photo ID law that says that you can vote with your gun license but you can't vote with your state-issued student ID, we will tell people to get the ID that they need to vote. But we will also organize folks across this country to stay in and put pressure on Congress. Congress with huge bipartisan support put the Voting Rights Act back in place in 2006. We reauthorized it. Ninety-eight of the U.S. senators voted for it. Only thirty folks in the House voted against it. And we will call on them to do the same thing now. I think all eyes really shift to the Republican Party right now because in 2006 their chairman stood up, Ken Mehlman, and said that the Voting Rights Act was one of the great moral achievements of our time; and he put great pressure on his party to line up. The question now is whether these Republicans will stand up and say, yes, we are for being one nation, or whether they will show us through their actions that they're really just a bunch of reconstituted Dixiecrats.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Jan, do you think that-- that the Congress will act on this?
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, this is what I think is so fascinating about the voting rights decision, because, of course, the court didn't go as far as they could have gone. It didn't knock out kind of the heart of that. It said, "We're going to send this formula back to Congress," and I understand that people argue about that, a very scathing dissent.
BEN JEALOUS: Oh, but you and I know that (INDISTINCT) back to this Congress is pulling the injured out of the car--
JAN CRAWFORD: But that is the--
BEN JEALOUS: --and saying that the--
JAN CRAWFORD: --question, right? I mean the court is sending it again, five-four conservatives, they're-- they are putting it back in the Court of Congress. So-- I mean back in Congress's court. So, I mean, as you're suggesting, at some point, you know, you can blame the court for striking down this section, but Congress could do something about it. So why not look now at Congress, as you're suggesting to come in here and say we are going to look at this map and see what other states are going to be covered. Because the court in the voting rights decision essentially is saying, "Congress hasn't updated that formula since 1975."
BEN JEALOUS: What-- but-- but, you know, the--
JAN CRAWFORD: So what's-- why not?
BEN JEALOUS: Well-- well, there's two problems there, right? One is that this Congress sits across-- this court sits across the street from this Congress and they know that this is a do-nothing Congress that we've never seen, right? So when you put it back in their court, you-- you're putting it back there for nothing to happen with it right now. But-- but the other, you know, part of this is that the formula was self-updated. The formula said, "Look, if you could show that your state hadn't had a problem in racially suppressing the vote in ten years, you can opt out." Two hundred and twenty-nine jurisdictions have done that. The ones who were in there were in there for a reason and this court just hobbled-- I mean I think Mister Gerson said it best when he said that if this is what Justice Roberts wanted to do, he should have run for Senate.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Professor Peterson, what do you-- what-- what do you think is going to happen here?
JAMES PETERSON: I don't want to let Congress off the hook, either. I agree that we should continue to apply pressure to Congress here like we-- we shouldn't say it's just a do-nothing Congress and then let them go. We got to apply pressure on them to try to update this particular formula. But-- but I think, you know, it's so interesting how you view Supreme Court judgments because I see this as an activist judgment, right? Because I'm obviously more progressive in thinking that these implements-- these measures need to stay implemented so that folks have access to voting. Again, we don't have to look back into history. We can look at the presidential election of 2012 to see all kinds of tactics implemented across the board or the attempted to implement tactics to-- to reduce people from voting and to-- to tamp down on voting. I think at the end of the day we live in a democracy where we want more people to participate. We want more people to be engaged in the process. And so any-- and-- and the thing is, historically, the way that this law was set up is that-- is that-- it's a moving pieces here. People use different tactics to try to reduce the vote. And so taking out Section 4 here, I think, just ultimately moves us back in time in ways that we just don't need to (INDISTINCT) about.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let's-- let's-- I want to go to-- to Mike Gerson here. Congress doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything. You see it moving in this direction, we also-- we want to bring in Fernando here to talk about this immigration bill. My sense of it is that they're not going to be able to get anything done on that.
MICHAEL GERSON (Washington Post): Well, sixty-eight votes in the Senate is a good start for immigration reform. But there were some warning signs there as well. Two-thirds of senators-- Republican senators voted against the immigration reform. That percentage is actually higher than it was last time around when they voted on comprehensive reform. So I think that's a serious problem. Speaker Boehner is very much in his lap now. He's not in a rush. He's having his members go home for recess and deter-- you know you kind of determine what they hear. But there is a-- I think there is a path here to make this happen. I-- but it's going to require, eventually, Speaker Boehner to pass this with majority Democratic support in the House.
JAN CRAWFORD: That's right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But--
MICHAEL GERSON: And that-- that is a huge risk to his speakership. I personally believe he might take that risk for a comprehensive budget deal that, you know, deals with entitlements. I'm not sure that he'll take that risk for-- for an immigration deal. We don't really have much indication there. But it is a huge need for Republicans. Their problem here is not just that they've ignored the Hispanic vote, it's that they spent twenty years beginning in Proposition 187 and Arizona laws and self-deportation actively alienating--
JAMES PETERSON: That's right.
MICHAEL GERSON: --the Hispanic vote. So it's going to be necessary to have some symbolic commitments here that there is a changing course, that the direction is different. This moment could really contribute to that previous narrative in ways that I think are concerns for Republicans.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you were saying this as a former member of the Bush administration, a speechwriter for George W. Bush, and a lifelong conservative.
MICHAEL GERSON: George W. Bush administration fought for-- fought for comprehensive reform, basically because of demographic reality, but also just because of the nature of the party and the contribution--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Fernando?
MICHAEL GERSON: --of Hispanics to our country.
FERNANDO ESPUELAS (Univision Radio Network): Yeah. Well, I-- I-- I-- I totally agree. I mean I think the Republican Party is on a precipice right now and whatever Boehner does, whether he allows a vote or not, will really-- really decide the next two, three, four cycles. I think in general-- and I'm not speaking for fifty-five million Hispanics, but people are looking at this as a highly symbolic issue of how that community is being treated by the Republican Party. And I think if it fails, it will have a name underneath it, it will be the Republican Party that killed the bill and that will not be forgotten any time soon. I think it will, like Proposition 187 in California, galvanize people. It will get a lot of people to vote, and, in particularl, in Texas where there's-- really there's-- there is a moment in time people say it's 20/20. I think it's earlier-- where this could really push a lot of people who right now.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- do you agree with some who say it's just a way to get more votes for the Democrats that-- that the more Hispanics you bring in, the bigger they-- the Democratic vote is going to be?
FERNANDO ESPUELAS: I think people are missing the whole story of immigration reform, which is needed for the country. It's needed to have a rational policy to have human capital necessary for the next one hundred years. It has-- I-- I wrote it down this morning. The latest Gallup poll, eighty-seven percent of Americans are in favor of immigration reform with a path towards legalization-- towards legalized citizenship. So this is really something for America and it's being blocked for pa-- partisan reasons at this point; and I think it will be very deadly for the Republican Party if they're branded as the anti-immigrant party.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Ben, I want to get your take on something that--
BEN JEALOUS: Sure.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday. He said that police are disproportionately stopping whites too much and minorities too little as compared to murder suspects' descriptions. This, of course, has sparked a lot of criticism from activists and some politicians, who say that-- that-- that he--he shouldn't have said this.
BEN JEALOUS: No, he's really trying hard to make himself the Bull Connor of the twenty-first century, which is-- which is fairly surprising. But I mean, you know, he's-- he's a much kinder, gentler face, but the numbers don't lie. When Mister Diallo was killed in New York City, when Giuliani was mayor, we said that their racial profiling program was out of control, because they were doing about seventy thousand per year. Ninety percent of the people were innocent. Ninety percent of the people were people of color. Two thousand eleven, at a Bloomberg, six hundred and eighty-eight thousand, almost ten times as many under Giuliani. Ninety-nine-- sorry, ninety percent, give or take a point, people of color, ninety percent, give or take a point, innocent--99.9 percent don't have a gun. Seven hundred thousand almost stop and frisk, seven hundred guns seized. And, yet, he keeps doubling down on a racial profiling program that is distracting officers from doing their job. And just-- just one quick story. Last year it was said in the New York Times, that an officer was walking down the street looking for a specific rape suspect, he's-- who was a man. He-- he stopped four young girls and asked them "Have you seen this guy?" They said "No," and then he stopped and frisked them. This is the problem with this program, the-- the moment he stopped and frisked those four girls, he stopped looking for the rape suspect, which is why New York City solves fewer homicides and fewer rapes than the country does on average.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to just switch subjects quickly and I have to do that because there's just so much news. Michael, I want to get back to you on-- on the-- the NSA story and these leaks. You heard Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA, who-- who basically said the administration needs to be doing more here to help people understand what's going on. And, you know, the President seems rather sanguine about all of this. He-- he doesn't seem to be all that upset about it. I-- I'm sure he's upset but he--
MICHAEL GERSON: I-- I think the President has a long-term challenge here, by which, there are elements of his constituency that are not hap-- happy about this. But he sits in the Oval Office every morning and he sees the threat assessments that come across this desk. And any President, Republican or Democrat, is going to react in a certain way. It's the reason you have significant continuity between administrations, between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. But he's sometimes hesitant to defend that in public. You could point out, for example, on this most recent story that I knew when I was in government that Germany is a hotbed of Islamist terrorist activity. It's one of the main centers in Europe. So the reality is here is sometimes you can't answer these because you can't disclose information, okay? And-- but sometimes there's a reticence, I think, on the part of the administration because of its own constituents.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do-- go ahead, Fernando.
FERNANDO ESPUELAS: Yeah. I was going to say-- I-- I think that we're getting to the-- a tipping point where the government has overextended its-- essentially spying on citizens program to such a degree that I think it's going to be very hard for people to trust that the government will do the right thing with that level of information vacuuming that they're doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I think one of the hard things about this story is, you know, we want-- we-- you say trust but verify like Ronald Reagan used to do. We can't-- know-- we don't know enough about it to find facts to-- to verify if-- if we do want to trust. And I think that's one of--
JAMES PETERSON: I just-- I-- I-- I just think that there's been an enormous amount of naivete around the leaks and the breaking stories. Like, for instance, we're just talking about stop and frisk. You know, there's a very real community of people in America who have been under surveillance in a very, very different kind of way, with video cameras and police forces and things of that nature. So now to think about the kind of uproar around something that really broke in 2006, essentially, under the Bush administration, you know, this is the world that we live in and we want more information but at the end of the day I'm not sure anything is going to really change.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, we'll be back in a moment with our FACE THE NATION Flashback. Thank you all.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Spain may have its running of the bulls, but in Washington, this is the season for our own tradition: the annual running of the interns. Our FACE THE NATION Flashback.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The Supreme Court always waits until the last week of the session to hand down decisions in its biggest cases, and this week was no exception. Forget the technology revolution, the Supreme Court still does it the old way.
JAN CRAWFORD: Go on the air now. Here they come.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The opinions are printed and handed out to reporters. But it's a long way from the pressroom to the television cameras. So summer interns lace up the running shoes, pick up the opinions and race them to reporters outside.
NORAH O'DONNELL: Bill, stand by, we want to go back now to the Supreme Court. You see some of the interns running out with decisions. Jan Crawford has more information. Jan, what have you learned?
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, Norah, what you see now, this is how we find out when these decisions come down. All of the-- the interns-- here comes our intern now with the decision. The court has just handed down its ruling in the California Proposition 8 case. Here it is. Let's take a look at it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Old-fashioned, for sure, and a part of the craft they didn't learn in college, but these cub reporters are finding out that when you go after a story, good running shoes help. Our FACE THE NATION Flashback.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that's it for us today. Be sure to watch CBS THIS MORNING tomorrow for the latest on all of what we talked about today, and more. Thanks for watching. See you next week.